Considering New Boxster as only car - 4Cyl Refresh Options? - Page 3 - Boxster/Cayman - PistonHeads UK

Hi All, I'm considering a Boxster as my first ever new car. I'm new to Porsche although have owned cars with similar performance. Does anyone know if the upcoming 4 Cylinder engines are to replace or go along side the 6 cylinder units? I asked my local dealer and was told a 4 cylinder refresh is coming but they had no concrete details. Obviously if the 4 cylinder is cheaper with similar performance that would sway my decision to buying after the refresh (Although I really like the sound and character of my current 6). I also have a few option specific questions. Is the smaller steering wheel available with the manual? (Dealer told me only with PDK but the configurator suggests it is OK). Also what is the deal with DAB radio? I was told that it is included with Bose and Burmester audio but again the configurator thinks otherwise. Are people able to get any kind of discount on the 2.7 Boxster of late?

Its hard to imagine the 4 cylinder motor being anything more than a crushing disappointment. But it depends what you want. I am sure that the average new Boxster buyer will be fine with it.

I'd go for the '6' any time. In a few years from now I suspect the last of the 6 cylinder Boxsters will have held a lot more of their value than the turbo 4s. For enthusiasts, a revvy 6 will be the desirable engine of the two.

DavidJG said: I'd go for the '6' any time. In a few years from now I suspect the last of the 6 cylinder Boxsters will have held a lot more of their value than the turbo 4s. For enthusiasts, a revvy 6 will be the desirable engine of the two. I personally like the NA 6 and agree your probably right about resale. But I think much of the appeal of the engine to many is the exhaust noise. You won't find much about exhaust noise on Caterham forums - and they are surely much more hard core enthusiasts than the average Porsche owner. Having had two Subarus I do miss the mid-range grunt of a turbo, which is a significant alternative compensation. That grunt on the Turbo 4 Porsche's will make the frequent criticism of the long gears probably go away. The 4's should also be a fair bit lighter too. So while I can see why there will be many who mourn the passing of the 6, I do see an upside too.

bcr5784 said: I personally like the NA 6 and agree your probably right about resale. But I think much of the appeal of the engine to many is the exhaust noise. You won't find much about exhaust noise on Caterham forums - and they are surely much more hard core enthusiasts than the average Porsche owner. Having had two Subarus I do miss the mid-range grunt of a turbo, which is a significant alternative compensation. That grunt on the Turbo 4 Porsche's will make the frequent criticism of the long gears probably go away. The 4's should also be a fair bit lighter too. So while I can see why there will be many who mourn the passing of the 6, I do see an upside too. Your thinking seems similar to mine. I guess the six if anything is more important in the Boxster than the Cayman. It is not just the change of engine though that is interesting for the upcoming refresh, improvements to the electronics (Audio/Nav) are actually quite important to me as this would be a daily drive. Does anyone have any details on the upcoming refresh? Being a Porsche I suppose we wont see any drop in price for the loss of 2 cylinders.

I expect the new 981.2 4-cylinder turbos to be better engines live with for the average buyer. Significantly higher torque in the lower RPM range, lower fuel consumption, higher power (would guess 380 PS for the 981.2 S). It'll probably sound ok compared to other turbo 4-pots but very disappointing to people who are used to the old flat six. My guess is that the Cayman and Cayman S will get a turbo 4-cylinder while the GTS and GT4 models will retain the 6-cylinder engine at a higher price point.

I can't think of a modern 4cyl engine that has character, so I imagine the new Porsche Boxster to be a great car with a dull Audi S3 engine in it basically.

Beanoir said: I can't think of a modern 4cyl engine that has character, so I imagine the new Porsche Boxster to be a great car with a dull Audi S3 engine in it basically. There have been some fabulous 4 cylinder engines, like the Cosworth BDA on carbs and Alfa 2.0 unit. But, you are right, all modern 4 cylinders are dishwater. In fact, modern 3 cylinder engines have more character! I actually quite like them.

This is why I'm unsure to buy a 6 now for better noise and character or buy a refresh model for slightly cheaper running and better day to day use. Not a track racer but redline my current C350 daily and love the noise with the roof open but handling seems poor in the Merc. Anyone running a 2.7 daily? Or does everyone have a GT4 😀

anonymous said: [redacted] More torque = more effortless performance? The 2.7 manual (in particular) does need to be razzed to perform and, lovely engine though it is, you may not always be in the mood in a DD.

Krobar said: This is why I'm unsure to buy a 6 now for better noise and character or buy a refresh model for slightly cheaper running and better day to day use. Not a track racer but redline my current C350 daily and love the noise with the roof open but handling seems poor in the Merc. Anyone running a 2.7 daily? Or does everyone have a GT4 ?? Ran a Cayman 981 2.7 as a daily in lieu of a co car for 10 months/ 24,000 miles. It was dynamically very competent, practical, efficient (40mpg on longer trips) well made and great fun when I was in the mood; I'd often take rural routes up and down the country to enjoy the car whilst on business.. Negatives would be the stop start function (easily fixed by programming the system to default to off), ergonomics of the centre console (very fiddly and get lost behind the gear selector) and like many new cars lacked soul. The engine needed a ringing to extract any performance but I didn't find that a chore- the gearing as has often been discussed would be better if it were 10mph lower per ratio (even in PDK form) but it wasn't the end of the world for me. When I bought it in Dec 2013 discounts were available, no idea on the current state of the market. Edited by truck71 on Monday 18th May 09:41

anonymous said: [redacted] I guess it depends on what you are looking for in a car, but having driven the 2.7 for a day I felt it was woefully underpowered. It may be fast enough as a daily driver for a normal driver who hasn't driven any other Porsche before but that's about it. I'd look and feel like an idiot revving it out around town, even then just barely keeping up with the average 3L Diesel rep mobile or current 2L 4 cyl hot hatch that just pulls away briskly without much thinking or much drama. Obligatory Chris Harris link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCN7KlMzDAk I think the turbo 4-cylinder will be a great upgrade over the N/A 2.7 for 99% of the population. The other 1% is here on PH.

Liked the vid (The Cayman S review by the same person was good too). Seems the money I have means I can only have performance or handling if I want a new car. SLK55s can be had for 43K new which look like a very nice engine for the money. I suppose I need to actually test drive a Boxster and see how it handles.

truck71 said: Ran a Cayman 981 2.7 as a daily in lieu of a co car for 10 months/ 24,000 miles. It was dynamically very competent, practical, efficient (40mpg on longer trips) well made and great fun when I was in the mood; I'd often take rural routes up and down the country to enjoy the car whilst on business.. Negatives would be the stop start function (easily fixed by programming the system to default to off), ergonomics of the centre console (very fiddly and get lost behind the gear selector) and like many new cars lacked soul. The engine needed a ringing to extract any performance but I didn't find that a chore- the gearing as has often been discussed would be better if it were 10mph lower per ratio (even in PDK form) but it wasn't the end of the world for me. When I bought it in Dec 2013 discounts were available, no idea on the current state of the market. Edited by truck71 on Monday 18th May 09:41 Thanks for the useful feedback Truck. Will the dealer change the stop/start default?

More semi-official news on the topic. Interestingly he mentioned a "Cayman and Boxster successor", so maybe they are really going to rebrand it and sell it as the 718. I imagine the marketing department would rather sell a "new model with 718 Spyder flat 4 racing genes" than a "facelifted Boxster with two cylinders less than the old one". http://www.autonews.com/article/20150518/OEM04/305...

Krobar said: Thanks for the useful feedback Truck. Will the dealer change the stop/start default? Yes, if you do proceed just ask them to do it at PDI (if you think it will annoy you of course- it may not). Just to expand on the performance, this is not a dragster; big diesels and super hot hatch's will be quicker in a straight line. However as an A/B road device that offers precision and involvement whilst keeping your licence safe it really works. If traffic light emergency starts and dick waving in lane 3 on the motorway are your thing then this isn't the car for you. Show it an empty back road and it's brilliant. I came from a TVR Tuscan which was in another ball park performance wise, I could drive the Cayman quicker in 95% of situations..

The other alternative is an S. The 3.4 engine makes it a much more effortless car on the motorway and whenever you just want to breeze along quickly. Sure you don't need the top end performance, but the mid range is nice to have and was the clincher for me. I was thinking of a new 2.7 myself but a drive in an S convinced me that a 6 month old S for about the same money (spec for spec) was a better choice.

A great deal of nonsense in this thread. (1) Since when is a few mpg difference remotely relevant on a new Porsche? You are dropping £5k+ a year in depreciation, £1k a year in other costs of motoring and are worried about £200 per year (at most) in fuel? MPG would feature literally nowhere in my consideration. (2) Revving a 2.7 hard to keep up with traffic in town? What? First gear is pretty short, and 2nd pulls hard from 18mph or so. I don't think I have ever used anything like full throttle in town (driving a 3.4 admittedly). (3) Turbo 4 pots have nothing whatsoever to do with what the majority of drivers want or will enjoy (as the majority, even of Porsche drivers, have no clue about engines). It is ALL about CO2 targets, and Porsche will sell us what it has to sell us to keep VAG within the limits. Nobody at Porsche will think anything other than that they are having to piss on our chips and tell us it's vinegar. (4) I doubt the turbo 4 will be much lighter than the 2.7. Nothing worth thinking about in a car that weighs 1350kg. I doubt the turbo 4 will have 380bhp - first, that is quite a high specific output, and, more importantly, the 4 will have to be a lot slower than the GT4 (and its replacement, which will probably keep an NA 6). I would expect about 330bhp but a fair bit of torque (so a horrible flat top end or low redline).

ORD said: A great deal of nonsense in this thread. (1) Since when is a few mpg difference remotely relevant on a new Porsche? You are dropping £5k+ a year in depreciation, £1k a year in other costs of motoring and are worried about £200 per year (at most) in fuel? MPG would feature literally nowhere in my consideration. (2) Revving a 2.7 hard to keep up with traffic in town? What? First gear is pretty short, and 2nd pulls hard from 18mph or so. I don't think I have ever used anything like full throttle in town (driving a 3.4 admittedly). (3) Turbo 4 pots have nothing whatsoever to do with what the majority of drivers want or will enjoy (as the majority, even of Porsche drivers, have no clue about engines). It is ALL about CO2 targets, and Porsche will sell us what it has to sell us to keep VAG within the limits. Nobody at Porsche will think anything other than that they are having to piss on our chips and tell us it's vinegar. (4) I doubt the turbo 4 will be much lighter than the 2.7. Nothing worth thinking about in a car that weighs 1350kg. I doubt the turbo 4 will have 380bhp - first, that is quite a high specific output, and, more importantly, the 4 will have to be a lot slower than the GT4 (and its replacement, which will probably keep an NA 6). I would expect about 330bhp but a fair bit of torque (so a horrible flat top end or low redline). 1 - I agree 2 - I agree again 3 - Everything is about CO2 targets; I work in car engine development for a Porsche rival, we're hitting CO2 not keep customers happy (they can afford run un-economical cars) but to keep politicians happy. Small capacity turbo engines are here to stay, get used to it. 4 - Again I agree, saving 50kg of an engine's mass is difficult and would have little effect on a car's overall performance. Soon there will be plug-in hybrid versions of all the range as some Chinese cities will require any new car to be a PHEV. No PHEV = no sales in China, one of the biggest luxury car markets in the world.

engineermk said: 1 - I agree 2 - I agree again 3 - Everything is about CO2 targets; I work in car engine development for a Porsche rival, we're hitting CO2 not keep customers happy (they can afford run un-economical cars) but to keep politicians happy. Small capacity turbo engines are here to stay, get used to it. 4 - Again I agree, saving 50kg of an engine's mass is difficult and would have little effect on a car's overall performance. Soon there will be plug-in hybrid versions of all the range as some Chinese cities will require any new car to be a PHEV. No PHEV = no sales in China, one of the biggest luxury car markets in the world. I would be much happier with a high-revving, low torque NA petrol engine plus an electric motor performing a "torque fill" function. A lot of fun to be had with that approach, and it could be very efficient indeed; but I doubt it is what we will get. It will be tiny turbo engine plus electric gubbins.

You assume it will be an exhaust gas driven turbo! electric motor drive turbo's are here... if you use one of them, or tandem them with a traditional turbo, you can fill some of the torque dips and turbo lag.

ORD said: (2) Revving a 2.7 hard to keep up with traffic in town? What? First gear is pretty short, and 2nd pulls hard from 18mph or so. I don't think I have ever used anything like full throttle in town (driving a 3.4 admittedly). (3) Turbo 4 pots have nothing whatsoever to do with what the majority of drivers want or will enjoy (as the majority, even of Porsche drivers, have no clue about engines). It is ALL about CO2 targets, and Porsche will sell us what it has to sell us to keep VAG within the limits. Nobody at Porsche will think anything other than that they are having to piss on our chips and tell us it's vinegar. I doubt the turbo 4 will have 380bhp - first, that is quite a high specific output, and, more importantly, the 4 will have to be a lot slower than the GT4 (and its replacement, which will probably keep an NA 6). I would expect about 330bhp but a fair bit of torque (so a horrible flat top end or low redline). Re 2) But you've got a 3.4 which is not what we are talking about - the lack of torque in the 2.7 is why I went S. Re 3) While doubtless CO2 targets are undoubtedly the main driver, that doesn't mean that a turbo 4 won't produce some things that drivers will like. A Seat Cupra has a 2 litre engine producing just about as much power as the 2.7 (280ps) but much more torque - 350nm vs 290. In fact below 3500 rpm it produces more torque than the 3.4S. Agreed it won't have quite the top end zing - though peak torque on the Cupra is maintained to 5600, and peak power is maintained all the way to 6600. I personally practically never use over 6500 revs, so I hardly think the loss of the last 1000 revs is such an issue. So it's hardly likely to feel horribly flat at the top end (to me at least) - indeed if you look at the 3.4S engine it's power is pretty flat above 6000 to the (very slight) peak at 7400. So in reality, a Turbo 4 is going to FEEL much faster than a 2.7 NA 6 and not that much slower than an NA 3.4 for much of the time. Would I choose a turbo 4 over an NA S - definitely not. Over a 2.7 (with current gearing) if that was the limit of my budget? A much closer call and really depends how good a job Porsche do.

2.0 turbos make Baby Jesus cry.

ORD said: 2.0 turbos make Baby Jesus cry. 6 and 8 cylinder Ferraris had the same effect..... And what Enzo might say about a turbo 488 doesn't bear thinking about.

I find the negativity about 4 cyl engines to be very strange. It's immaterial that dull cars have dull 4 cyl engines. It's all about what the sports car manufacturer does with them. Is the 4 cyl duratec a dull reps engine? Yes. Is the Caterham r500 a dull car? For a bunch of Porsche enthusiasts you lot sure are negative about Porsche as a manufacturer. You really hate them it seems to me. They might just might produce something good although they have no track record of producing good sports cars have they? Bert

I love Porsche. A major part of that is that they manufacture lovely and unusual engines. The turbo flat 4 might turn out to be brilliant, but the odds are stacked massively against it: turbo engines almost always sound crap; 4 cylinder engines almost always sound crap; turbo four pots are unpleasant to use. And, as Cmoose says, it is not as though Porsche WANTS to build these engines - P is simply trying to find the least bad way to hit stupid emissions targets. If Porsche had said "We think we can make a bloody awesome flat 4 and want to do so because it will sound great, be smooth as silk and be just as emotive as the 6", I would try to have faith. But Porsche says "Look, we have to do this. We are sorry. It will be tolerable, we hope..."

ORD said: P is simply trying to find the least bad way to hit stupid emissions targets while retaining obscene profit margins. edited for accuracy... A micro 918 would have been a much more elegant choice. Downsized N/A 2.7 flat six augmented by an plugin electric motor and maybe a partial carbon tub to offset weight. Real world consumption would not go down much but it would meet all emission targets. The technology is there. The Golf GTE does exactly that already, although with a very hamfisted and heavy approach using the old Mk7 chassis and a 1.4 TSI. The only reason why Porsche isn't doing that is the price, so instead we're getting engines that according to Walter Röhrl sound "like a Volkswagen Beetle". This is coming from a guy that has heard and likely even driven the preproduction prototypes. Roehrl said: “At least it’s not a four-cylinder turbo like in the next Boxster. That sounds like a Volkswagen Beetle, I’m not kidding you! I tell the guys, ‘You’re joking with this sound, right?’ But they just say they are working on it. I’m sure they will get it right.” http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/news/1502/exclusive-porsche-911-to-get-a-27-turbo/

Ordered a 2.7 Cayman today due for delivery in October as didn't want to take a chance on leaving it to next year and finding that the F6 is no longer an option. Don't care about the much talked about reduced performance/torque of the smaller unit because in the real world it really doesn't matter to us. What we do want is an engine sound track that enhances the driving experience and I don't think the T4 will provide that.

Miopyk said: Ordered a 2.7 Cayman today due for delivery in October as didn't want to take a chance on leaving it to next year and finding that the F6 is no longer an option. Don't care about the much talked about reduced performance/torque of the smaller unit because in the real world it really doesn't matter to us. What we do want is an engine sound track that enhances the driving experience and I don't think the T4 will provide that. I agree - the subjective stuff is far more important. The turbo 4 will be plenty fast - more torque than the 3.4 and just about as much power, I expect. It'll sound thoroughly s t and be a straining turd, in all likelihood, though

ORD said: I agree - the subjective stuff is far more important. The turbo 4 will be plenty fast - more torque than the 3.4 and just about as much power, I expect. It'll sound thoroughly s t and be a straining turd, in all likelihood, though Don't think many Scooby fans would agree with that. Early 2 litre Scoobies are very revvy (eager to go to the 7300rpm limit with no strain) and definitely characterful. No reason why Porsche can't do better with current technology.

I love the way a six cylinder Porsche sounds,I would not be keen on a four pot one. Never did the 944 any harm though. I can remember wanting one of those really badly

bcr5784 said: Don't think many Scooby fans would agree with that. Early 2 litre Scoobies are very revvy (eager to go to the 7300rpm limit with no strain) and definitely characterful. No reason why Porsche can't do better with current technology. I think they're very much an aquired taste, to my ears they sound like a lawnmower that needs the points changing.

anonymous said: [redacted] Agreed. We had a 944 back in the day and while it was a fantastic car the engine was the weakest part of the package. It was ok from a performance perspective but sounded pants. Don't want to repeat that experience with the Cayman.

anonymous said: [redacted] Noise is a very personal thing but I think in the grand scheme of things far too much is made of it. As practically everyone would once have agreed a nice rumbly sounding V8 must have a two plane crank. A single plane crank makes a sound like 2 in line 4s joined at the hip and is nothing like as nice. (Unless you like the sound of tearing calico). Hasn't done Ferrari any harm though.... In any case, these days much of the noise is, by one means or another, artificially engineered/generated so I think such concerns will either be overcome or fashions will change. I regret to say that fashions in cars are marketing/profit driven and no more logical or rational than fashions in womens' clothes . (Dr Zeuss's Star Bellied Sneechers spring to mind).

To be fair when the 944 was newish it was quite rare for me to see many. So it was more a case of ooh look a 944. Nowadays there seem to be more performance cars around

anonymous said: [redacted] That's your personal preference - and as valid as anyone else's - but as you say "you don't get to define what other people care about" any more than I do. It's not that I particularly welcome turbo 4s - just that I see there are pluses and minuses, whereas you seem to see the world totally in black and white. Edited by bcr5784 on Sunday 24th May 22:19

anonymous said: [redacted] That, as my amended post says, there are pluses and minuses with turbo 4s whereas you see the world in black and white - and there will be those who prefer the grunt of a turbo engine at least some of the time. It is perfectly possible, with modern ECUs and turbos (twin, ceramic, variable geometry) to give a turbo engine any power curve you like (and good throttle response) and, these days, there is great scope for changing the noise by tuning the exhaust and induction systems - as you acknowledge - currently happens. So to dismiss the turbo 4s as inevitable crap is, at very least, premature and unsubstantiated. Edited by bcr5784 on Sunday 24th May 22:43 Edited by bcr5784 on Sunday 24th May 22:45

anonymous said: [redacted] Torque is not cheap UNLESS you have use a turbo. You seem to ignore the fact that the cars are going to continue to have very high gears (ridiculously so in the case of the current 2.7) but a turbo will allow the car to pull them. You may wish Porsche would lower the gearing - but you must know perfectly well that they won't. So given that reality there is a significant real-world plus (for many - if not you) in a turbo - even though it probably won't sound as nice.

Also, these cars are too fast for the road as it is - adding lots of mid-range torque will just make it even less possible to enjoy them without losing your licence. More torque means faster acceleration without the noise and drama of revving it out. Effortless mid-range punch is for motorway cruisers, not sports cars.

ORD said: Also, these cars are too fast for the road as it is - adding lots of mid-range torque will just make it even less possible to enjoy them without losing your licence. More torque means faster acceleration without the noise and drama of revving it out. Effortless mid-range punch is for motorway cruisers, not sports cars. Both I AND moose (if his previous posting are to believe) chose to buy a 3.4 because, although the 2.7 is plenty fast enough outright for us both, it lacks torque. Would I have bought a 2 litre turbo over a 3.4 and saved myself £10000 if that choice had been available? Not sure and depends how good a job Porsche do. Moose and you presumably wouldn't but we all have different priorities. Compared with really focussed sports car (Caterhams, Atoms, some Lotuses) a Cayman IS a bit of a motorway cruiser. Indeed it's breadth of abilities IS its appeal to me (and I suspect to many buyers). But we are never going to agree.

Torque again. The most misunderstood automotive metric. Seized bolt, loads of torque applied, no movement. You can't discuss torque separately, it's makes little sense. You need to associate power/torque/revs/gearing. The Cayman chassis needs NA power delivery IMO. And 6-pot sound.

nickfrog said: Torque again. The most misunderstood automotive metric. Seized bolt, loads of torque applied, no movement. You can't discuss torque separately, it's makes little sense. You need to associate power/torque/revs/gearing. The Cayman chassis needs NA power delivery IMO. And 6-pot sound. When we are talking torque I think even moose and I know what me mean - even if we don't agree about its importance (given the gearing that Porsche have lumbered us with). But in regards to the Cayman (981) chassis - and the gearing we have - it would actually benefit from torque to unstick it and make the handling more engaging/playful.

bcr5784 said: nickfrog said: Torque again. The most misunderstood automotive metric. Seized bolt, loads of torque applied, no movement. You can't discuss torque separately, it's makes little sense. You need to associate power/torque/revs/gearing. The Cayman chassis needs NA power delivery IMO. And 6-pot sound. When we are talking torque I think even moose and I know what me mean - even if we don't agree about its importance (given the gearing that Porsche have lumbered us with). But in regards to the Cayman (981) chassis - and the gearing we have - it would actually benefit from torque to unstick it and make the handling more engaging/playful. Do you genuinely think that the gearing, including final drive, is the same between a T4 and a na f6 ? Seriously ? I am talking about the torque that multiplied by revs gives power and the very last thing you want in a low PMOI chassis is anything but progressive and predictable power delivery.

nickfrog said: Do you genuinely think that the gearing, including final drive, is the same between a T4 and a na f6 ? Seriously ? I am talking about the torque that multiplied by revs gives power and the very last thing you want in a low PMOI chassis is anything but progressive and predictable power delivery. Gearing certainly won't be any lower, but since both 981s are overgeared in 6th (NA) and vastly so in 7th (PDK) there would be no need (other than economy) to gear them higher. I'd actually be very surprized if the gearing actually changed - it's far more suitable for a turbo engine than a NA one. These days turbos can give very progressive power delivery once at reasonable revs (say above 2000 or so) - indeed the torque curve of the NA 981 engines are much less progressive in the 4000-4500 region than almost any turbo. Turbos generally are engineered to have a flat torque curve over a wide range - typically something like 2000-5500 for a sporting engine.

anonymous said: [redacted] Have to agree, I never viewed the 944/68 seriously back in those days, it was 911 only for me. But strangely, once the Boxster was produced, I was very happy to have one (several, in fact). Now, the 911 is in a very different sector and in general, I am not so interested in them.

Some of the magazines are claiming a Frankfurt reveal for refreshed Boxster. Despite the seemingly blowout Black edition (A load of discounted extras I don't want) it seems discounts are thin on the ground. I can help but think Bluetooth and DAB should just be included and probably will be in the refresh.

I've been thinking about this, a new Cayman S with flat 4 turbocharged engine, 370BHP lighter weight, huge slugs of mid & low range torques, early thirties MPG around town, starts to sound quite appealing

tyrrell said: I've been thinking about this, a new Cayman S with flat 4 turbocharged engine, 370BHP lighter weight, huge slugs of mid & low range torques, early thirties MPG around town, starts to sound quite appealing Stop it! - you are just trying to upset moose. That's my job.

bcr5784 said: Stop it! - you are just trying to upset moose. That's my job. LOL he will be along in a minute

bcr5784 said: Stop it! - you are just trying to upset moose. That's my job. LOL he will be along in a minute

tyrrell said: I've been thinking about this, a new Cayman S with flat 4 turbocharged engine, 370BHP lighter weight, huge slugs of mid & low range torques, early thirties MPG around town, starts to sound quite appealing Yep and electric turbo- or rather superchargers would effectively remove all lag and provide throttle response absolutely equal to a N/A engine, because the turbo would keep on spinning and building boost off throttle. I would not be surprised to see this technology in the 991/981 facelifts. There's a lot of development going on around this behind the curtains and I think it could be a complete game changer. more on this topic: http://articles.sae.org/13421/ more torque, more power, better fuel economy, same throttle response. the only downsides are sound and additional weight, although not nearly as much as with a real hybrid system.

The downsides are:- (1) It will sound terrible. (2) It will not be lag free. That is a motoring journalism myth that gets repeated about all new FI systems. As for the upsides, it will weigh no less and will be perhaps 10% more fuel efficient (which is an irrelevance given the total cost of ownership). It will also be boring as all hell to drive because it will be too fast in the mid-range to allow you to rev it out. It's turd. But Porsche has no choice if VAG has put out a requirement for 4 cyl engines.

ORD said: The downsides are:- (1) It will sound terrible. (2) It will not be lag free. That is a motoring journalism myth that gets repeated about all new FI systems. As for the upsides, it will weigh no less and will be perhaps 10% more fuel efficient (which is an irrelevance given the total cost of ownership). It will also be boring as all hell to drive because it will be too fast in the mid-range to allow you to rev it out. It's turd. But Porsche has no choice if VAG has put out a requirement for 4 cyl engines. It could be lag free, I was in Leeds opc on Saturday for their open day and one of the salesmen mentioned it might be 2 sequential turbos rather than how the 911 currently does it. I think it might have been done this way on the 959 but I'm not sure if that had lag or not. I'm more concerned about lack of noise and I reckon it will be synthesized like many other manufacturers have done.

chriscoates81 said: It could be lag free, I was in Leeds opc on Saturday for their open day and one of the salesmen mentioned it might be 2 sequential turbos rather than how the 911 currently does it. I think it might have been done this way on the 959 but I'm not sure if that had lag or not. I'm more concerned about lack of noise and I reckon it will be synthesized like many other manufacturers have done. Most sporting car manufacturers "engineer" the noise the car makes (tuned induction systems systems piped into the interior, PSE etc as Porsche do). At what point you regard it as "synthetic" is very much a personal thing. This is not a new thing - the original MX5 exhaust was engineered to sound like the Elan it aped many years ago. Personally I think it's already gone past the point where you can seriously regard the sound as truly natural in most mainstream sports cars.

bcr5784 said: Most sporting car manufacturers "engineer" the noise the car makes (tuned induction systems systems piped into the interior, PSE etc as Porsche do). At what point you regard it as "synthetic" is very much a personal thing. This is not a new thing - the original MX5 exhaust was engineered to sound like the Elan it aped many years ago. Personally I think it's already gone past the point where you can seriously regard the sound as truly natural in most mainstream sports cars. True - always a matter of degree, but with some fairly clear categories of manipulation. I have no problem at all with designing an engine to sound good; I am not impressed by and don't like too much exhaust trickery (but that is also because I prefer induction noise to exhaust noise; I hate electronically generated sound being pumped through speakers! The Porsche sound tube thing is a hard one to have a clear feeling about. It's a bit naff but not wholly fake, so I think of it a bit like exhaust trickery - at least there is a physical progress generating real sound.

ORD said: True - always a matter of degree, but with some fairly clear categories of manipulation. I have no problem at all with designing an engine to sound good; I am not impressed by and don't like too much exhaust trickery (but that is also because I prefer induction noise to exhaust noise; I hate electronically generated sound being pumped through speakers! The Porsche sound tube thing is a hard one to have a clear feeling about. It's a bit naff but not wholly fake, so I think of it a bit like exhaust trickery - at least there is a physical progress generating real sound. I frankly doubt most could tell the difference between the Porsche sound tube and a (well engineered?) arrangement via speakers - it's more-or-less a single source. The surround sound an exhaust creates would be much more difficult.

bcr5784 said: I frankly doubt most could tell the difference between the Porsche sound tube and a (well engineered?) arrangement via speakers - it's more-or-less a single source. The surround sound an exhaust creates would be much more difficult. But that doesn't matter to me. I would know the sound was fake and that would ruin it. It's like a perfect copy of a painting - it can look identical and still be worthless because it isn't real.

ORD said: bcr5784 said: I frankly doubt most could tell the difference between the Porsche sound tube and a (well engineered?) arrangement via speakers - it's more-or-less a single source. The surround sound an exhaust creates would be much more difficult. But that doesn't matter to me. I would know the sound was fake and that would ruin it. It's like a perfect copy of a painting - it can look identical and still be worthless because it isn't real. The 918 uses electric motors to ‘turbo charge’ the car – surely this is the performance technology and aural benchmark to be disseminated throughout the Porsche range in years to come. There is clearly no performance or sound issue with the 918. So really its bottoms down to; is can Porsche accelerate this technology into a commercial platform that could be mainstream. The reality is we are perhaps a car generation away from that being financial economical IMO (or gov mandated) – so makes sense that this ‘bridging period’ will see a mix of technology some with pot4 and other premium models kept NA for now. Therefore providing maximum spread across the existing and prospect customer base. After all lots of people are happy to buy a Porsche for the brand, not the way it performs or sounds.

Trotmant said: The 918 uses electric motors to ‘turbo charge’ the car – surely this is the performance technology and aural benchmark to be disseminated throughout the Porsche range in years to come. There is clearly no performance or sound issue with the 918. So really its bottoms down to; is can Porsche accelerate this technology into a commercial platform that could be mainstream. The reality is we are perhaps a car generation away from that being financial economical IMO (or gov mandated) – so makes sense that this ‘bridging period’ will see a mix of technology some with pot4 and other premium models kept NA for now. Therefore providing maximum spread across the existing and prospect customer base. After all lots of people are happy to buy a Porsche for the brand, not the way it performs or sounds. I guess it boils down to cost, after all a boxster a hell of a lot cheaper than a 918 and i imagine the electric engine in the 918 would add a fair whack ontop of the cost of a boxster.

You can't really downsize the 918 technology without making it crap, though. It sounds good because it has a monster, high revving V8. Exchange that for a turbo 4 pot and you have nothing like the same experience.

I dare say the single turbo is all about cost to build/selling price at the bottom of the range. A flat 4 is already costlier than an inline 4 (which has far fewer parts and is easier to assemnble). Same with the base Cayman going cheapest. No expensive convertible top and mechanism to build or install. Good strategy because a cheap base car makes it harder and harder for competitors to enter the game.

Ozzie Osmond said: I dare say the single turbo is all about cost to build/selling price at the bottom of the range. A flat 4 is already costlier than an inline 4 (which has far fewer parts and is easier to assemnble). Same with the base Cayman going cheapest. No expensive convertible top and mechanism to build or install. Good strategy because a cheap base car makes it harder and harder for competitors to enter the game. Yep, unless it devalues the brand. Porsche makes huge margins on its cars - the badge carries a huge premium. I wouldn't risk that with a 4 cyl abomination. In my view, it's all about emissions. Nothing else.

They have been testing the 4C at one of the sites I work at. Part of a recall. Bloody hell, what a ridiculous farty sound! How loud is it! 4's can sound good but all of the 'effort' seems to be towards the exhaust....

I would be surprised if those numbers are accurate. I can't believe that the S will have less power than currently? Sure, it'll have more torque; but I doubt Porsche would carry out such a major change and not show an increase in power. I doubt Porsche wants those headlines! '4 Cylinder Turbo Porsches! As powerful as a Golf if you go for the S!' Whether we like it or not, headline power figures matter, and Porsches are usually underpowered relative to similarly priced cars. If you go for turbos, there's no good reason (as regards marketing) not to increase the power and narrow the gap a bit. (To be clear, I am not a power freak. 300bhp is plenty, and it's more about weight reduction for me )

ORD said: I would be surprised if those numbers are accurate. I can't believe that the S will have less power than currently? Sure, it'll have more torque; but I doubt Porsche would carry out such a major change and not show an increase in power. I doubt Porsche wants those headlines! '4 Cylinder Turbo Porsches! As powerful as a Golf if you go for the S!' Whether we like it or not, headline power figures matter, and Porsches are usually underpowered relative to similarly priced cars. If you go for turbos, there's no good reason (as regards marketing) not to increase the power and narrow the gap a bit. (To be clear, I am not a power freak. 300bhp is plenty, and it's more about weight reduction for me ) Have to agree - whatever your view of Turbo 4s such low figures don't seem to make marketing sense. (would be good for flat 6 residuals though...)

Looks like I will be getting a 6 Cylinder Cayman

Finalised my spec yesterday, thanks for all the advice everyone. Will post some pics and maybe another question or 2 when the car finally arrives.